I have used a Powershot S70 for a while. I am not very pleased with the pictures I can take with it, especially not pics taken outside in low light situations. This is an example, it was taken in day time, in the winter in sweden, it's only cropped, it's 1:1 in maximum Jpeg from the camera.
http://homepage.mac.com/jhellstrom/NMS70.jpg
As you can see there is lot's of noice. I had the lens zoomed in halfways and I tried the lowest aperture possible to get a short depth in the picture. No luck.
So now I am considering a new EOS350, top reason is I hope I will get nosie free images, and a short depth if I like.

jamison55

02-25-2005, 02:45 AM

If Canon uses the same noise reduction technology in the 350D that they did in the 20D, it will be the lowest noise entry level DSLR you can buy. Check this out: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/187977

TheObiJuan

02-25-2005, 03:14 AM

my p150 has the same sensor as your s70, so i know where you are coming from. the camera also has horrible dynamic range when compared to dslrs.
noise is not bad on my camera as long as i manualy expose the image well.

i am going to purchase the 350D as soon as it comes out. :D

sherlock

02-25-2005, 08:39 AM

Hey,

Canon is careful to say that the 350D does not use the same sensor as the 20D, so I don't know how people can claim that the noise performance will be the same as the 20D (without fully testing it). I'm waiting for a full review from Jeff before making any decisions. ;) But if the 350D is as good as the 20D, it will be the seller of all sellers as far as consumer dSLR's are concerned. If Nikon doesn't have a counter attack they might as well kiss the consumer dSLR market goodbye.

Andrew S.

speaklightly

02-25-2005, 08:39 AM

If noise is a real concern, keep in mind that the Canon DigRebXT and the Canon 20D do not share the same processor. While the 20D has an excellent record for dealing with noise, I might have missed it, but I have not seen anything yet on how the 350 deals with noise.

Speaklightly

Guayaiperojo

02-25-2005, 11:36 AM

If you compare your s70 to the “first” Digital Rebel, you will fulfill your needs of low noise level. The reason that I am telling you this is for the budget point of view...

You can find Digital Rebels right know in ebay for 400 dollars or less, cause everyone is crazy and want to upgrade to the new Digital Rebel XT. The problem is that for someone with out lenses this means to spend up to $1000 (or more with taxes).
It is true that the Digital rebels XT have better noise reduction check this page... there is a virtual Demo...
http://photoworkshop.com/canon/
But selling the first digital rebels for under a $400 is crazy... since this is a great camera... So you may think take this into consideration and get a great price for this camera now that the price is so low...
Don't worry about the noise problem even if the new one is better the old Digital Rebel have by far a better performance of what you have experience, even if you compare it to those $900 dollars cameras with fixed lenses... So you can't go wrong... And with the extra savings you can buy a nice lens that is where you should invest your money if you are planning to move to DSRL...
Hope this helps...

gary_hendricks

02-25-2005, 04:56 PM

I have used a Powershot S70 for a while. I am not very pleased with the pictures I can take with it, especially not pics taken outside in low light situations. This is an example, it was taken in day time, in the winter in sweden, it's only cropped, it's 1:1 in maximum Jpeg from the camera.
http://homepage.mac.com/jhellstrom/NMS70.jpg
As you can see there is lot's of noice. I had the lens zoomed in halfways and I tried the lowest aperture possible to get a short depth in the picture. No luck.
So now I am considering a new EOS350, top reason is I hope I will get nosie free images, and a short depth if I like.

The problem is that camera noise is not just due to the camera. It is due to ambient lighting as well. Choose a bad low light environment and you'll end up with noise no matter what camera you have.

kave

02-26-2005, 01:02 AM

Thanks for all your replies, some think it will be much better quality and less noise, and some suggest when taking pics in low light situations you get noise whatever camera?

ReF

02-26-2005, 09:34 PM

Thanks for all your replies, some think it will be much better quality and less noise, and some suggest when taking pics in low light situations you get noise whatever camera?

noise at ISO 800 on a 6mp or 8mp D-slr is lower than noise at ISO 200 from a 5mp consumer cam. 7mp cams have higher noise than 5mp cams, so the reduction in noise when you jump to a d-slr will be HUGE. yes there will be noise from a d-slr but it will be minimal. from ISO 100-200 it's very hard to find noise even if you try. at ISO 400 you probably won't even know it's there until you inspect at 100%. for examples, you can go to dpreview.com and look at some reviews for D-slrs. there will be a noise testing section and they usually compare it to noise from a consumer cam. i might have missed it, but what ISO setting was your example pic. taken at?

speaklightly

02-27-2005, 06:46 AM

I agree 100% with ReF. I have owned a slew of consumer digital cameras, and a Pentax 1stDS and a Canon EOS 20D. Comparing them, there is no doubt that a dSLR will always generate LESS noise.

Under some conditions there will always be some noise. However, in a dSLR it will always be less.

Speaklightly

gary_hendricks

02-27-2005, 08:02 AM

DSLRs are always better than 'consumer' type of cameras.

DiJ

02-27-2005, 06:07 PM

Kave, what ISO is that taken at? The 7mp sensor is quite clean at ISO50.

kave

02-28-2005, 09:31 AM

Kave, what ISO is that taken at? The 7mp sensor is quite clean at ISO50.
That photo is taken at iso 400, otherwise the image would lack focus due to too long shutter time. So you folks are spot on.
I just ordered the Eos350D and a 17-85 IS with it. I might get a holiday trip to New York as a 30 year old gift from my woman so I won't compromise on image quality on such a trip :)

ReF

02-28-2005, 04:30 PM

That photo is taken at iso 400, otherwise the image would lack focus due to too long shutter time. So you folks are spot on.
I just ordered the Eos350D and a 17-85 IS with it. I might get a holiday trip to New York as a 30 year old gift from my woman so I won't compromise on image quality on such a trip :)

i'm really not trying to knock your lens choice but i personally used the 17-85mm for 3 weeks and have owned the 28-135 for four weeks. in quite a bit of testing (comparing test shots of different subjects including small text, at different focal lengths and apertures) i was much happier with the 28-135mm. the lens is sharper and contrast is better. the only thing that i felt was better about the 17-85mm was the incredible flare resistance compared to the 28-135mm and that the IS shuts off as soon as it's not needed. the 28-135mm keeps on working(you can hear a sound) for a second or two after the the shutter release button is released. IMO the 17-85mm costs too much considering that it doesn't perform as well as the 28-135 - the lens that it is the "replacement" for a 28-135 IS effective range on digital (many people have said that the 18-55 is a good performer at F8 and up. the 17-85mm is a bit soft from 17mm to around 35mm). if you need wide coverage you could still buy the kit lens (IS function not needed between 17m-28mm anyways) with the 28-135mm and still pay $100 less than the 17-85mm alone. heck, you can even get the excellent 50mm f1.8 for $70 and you would end up with three lenses for the same price that you would pay for the 17-85mm alone. you also would be getting an effective range of 29-216mm (with telephoto IS!) compared to 27-136mm. only drawback is changing lens to cover wide angle.
just my advice. i personally went with the 17-40mm L for wide coverage but that's a huge additional cost at around $670!

kave

02-28-2005, 11:58 PM

i'm really not trying to knock your lens choice but i personally used the 17-85mm for 3 weeks and have owned the 28-135 for four weeks. in quite a bit of testing (comparing test shots of different subjects including small text, at different focal lengths and apertures) i was much happier with the 28-135mm. the lens is sharper and contrast is better. the only thing that i felt was better about the 17-85mm was the incredible flare resistance compared to the 28-135mm and that the IS shuts off as soon as it's not needed. the 28-135mm keeps on working(you can hear a sound) for a second or two after the the shutter release button is released. IMO the 17-85mm costs too much considering that it doesn't perform as well as the 28-135 - the lens that it is the "replacement" for a 28-135 IS effective range on digital (many people have said that the 18-55 is a good performer at F8 and up. the 17-85mm is a bit soft from 17mm to around 35mm). if you need wide coverage you could still buy the kit lens (IS function not needed between 17m-28mm anyways) with the 28-135mm and still pay $100 less than the 17-85mm alone. heck, you can even get the excellent 50mm f1.8 for $70 and you would end up with three lenses for the same price that you would pay for the 17-85mm alone. you also would be getting an effective range of 29-216mm (with telephoto IS!) compared to 27-136mm. only drawback is changing lens to cover wide angle.
just my advice. i personally went with the 17-40mm L for wide coverage but that's a huge additional cost at around $670!
Interesting thoughts. I have not though about the 28-135 IS lens before at all. I have ordered the 350D with the kit lens, it's not alot of money anyway for the kit lens. The idea behind getting the 17-85 is that very often when using this camera I won't like to carry arround alot of lenses, just one of possible. Later I would pick up the 50 1.8 for portraits.

ReF

03-01-2005, 04:25 AM

Interesting thoughts. I have not though about the 28-135 IS lens before at all. I have ordered the 350D with the kit lens, it's not alot of money anyway for the kit lens. The idea behind getting the 17-85 is that very often when using this camera I won't like to carry arround alot of lenses, just one of possible. Later I would pick up the 50 1.8 for portraits.

when i first decided on a d-slr i was also determined to carry around just one lens, since my only real complaint about the 38-115mm range on the a80 i was using was the lack of wide angle and the 17-85mm fit well. at the end of the day though, i am much happier with the improved picture quality and extended range vs. the conveniece of carrying only 1 lens. but that's just me. i also found carrying an extra lens in the bag that i was already using to carry the camera around in wasn't such a big deal (in fact, hardly noticeable). again, just my opinion.

D70FAN

03-01-2005, 07:53 AM

Interesting thoughts. I have not though about the 28-135 IS lens before at all. I have ordered the 350D with the kit lens, it's not alot of money anyway for the kit lens. The idea behind getting the 17-85 is that very often when using this camera I won't like to carry arround alot of lenses, just one of possible. Later I would pick up the 50 1.8 for portraits.

Just as an FYI:

I opted for the Sigma 18-125 DC (~$270) as a good all around lens for my D70, and supplimented it with a 50mm f1.8. The combination covers about 95% of my shooting needs and is still easy to carry around.

Also both Sigma and Tamron are introducing 18mm-200mm lenses in a few weeks.

TheObiJuan

03-01-2005, 02:28 PM

Just as an FYI:

I opted for the Sigma 18-125 DC (~$270) as a good all around lens for my D70, and supplimented it with a 50mm f1.8. The combination covers about 95% of my shooting needs and is still easy to carry around.

Also both Sigma and Tamron are introducing 18mm-200mm lenses in a few weeks.

but with increased focal range and decreased size, comes decreased optical quality. the lenses are not even close to being fast enough for a walkaround lens that may be used in low light. i guess this is where the 50 mk1 comes in :D

D70FAN

03-01-2005, 04:11 PM

but with increased focal range and decreased size, comes decreased optical quality. the lenses are not even close to being fast enough for a walkaround lens that may be used in low light. i guess this is where the 50 mk1 comes in :D

I don't think that's quite the case, as the Sigma has served me well for 5 months as a walk-around, day-to-day lens. Actually, low light is not a problem as this is where having a low noise ISO800-1600 setting comes in to play...

The proof is in the images:

http://d70fan.smugmug.com/gallery/197044

It would be nice to have the coin to drop $1400 on an limited range f2.8 zoom that stops at 70mm, but the idea of a walk-around lens is to get the shot, near or far.

The 50mm f1.8 is not as much for low light as it is for bokeh. ;) that's why it's considered more of a protrait lens. Not a lot of DOF at f1.8, and not much light intake at f8. I am planning to add a Sigma 24-70 f2.8 in a month or so, which should take care of the missing piece at a reasonable price. :)